MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Two announcements, then I'll be
happy to take your questions.

President Bush and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern will meet at
the White House on March 13th. They'll be meeting just before St.
Patrick's Day, and they will mark the numerous contributions to America
made by the Irish in the continuing -- and note the continuing warm
relations between our two countries.

Early this morning, the President made a phone call to the Prime
Minister of the Netherlands, Prime Minister Balkenende. They had a
substantive and warm consultation. The Netherlands is a very close
ally of the United States. They agreed on the importance of passage of
a new U.N. Security Council resolution. They both stressed the issue
is Iraq's compliance -- or failure to comply -- with United Nations
resolutions. And they both stated that the credibility of the United
Nations is at stake.

And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Helen.

Q Does the President think, though, to dissent against the war
that he's planning are appeasers?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President views everybody who has a position
about the war as a patriot. The President does view this much like
Elie Wiesel did, when Elie Wiesel came to the White House yesterday and
met the President -- where Elie Wiesel, one of the great humanists and
smartest intellectuals and a leading moral authority -- no less an
official than Elie Wiesel stood in front of the White House after a
meeting with the President and said, this is like 1938 all over again.
And he called --

Q And he thinks we should bomb people?

MR. FLEISCHER: -- and he called on the world, including Europe, to
intervene, to disarm Iraq. As Elie Wiesel said, if the world had done
that in 1938, there would have been no World War II. The President
views it in a similar way.

Q So he thinks Saddam is the same as Hitler? Is he comparing
him to Hitler, marching across Europe?

MR. FLEISCHER: He stopped just -- Elie Wiesel stopped just short
of saying that.

Q Hans Blix said today that Iraq's pledge to destroy the Al
Samouds represents "significant piece of disarmament." How does the
White House see it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the White House views this as a question of
what 1441 called for. And 1441 called for a complete and total and
immediate disarmament. It did not call for pieces of disarmament.
President Bush has always predicted that Iraq would destroy its Al
Samoud II missiles as part of their games of deception. And I think
when you summarize Iraq's statement, that in principle they will
destroy their missiles, the Iraqi actions are propaganda w,rapped in a
lie, inside a falsehood.

Q Is this going to complicate your efforts at the Security
Council to get a second resolution passed? I mean, I can see that the
resistant members of the Security Council to your position will say,
inspections are working, Iraq is disarming, why stop something that's
working?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think we will know on the day that the vote takes
place. And I think that any given day between now and the vote, I
understand the tendency to take a look at every statement, every last
wrinkle, and say, does this make it easier for the United States? Does
this make it easier for somebody else? That's not how the President
approaches it. The President approaches it broadly focused on the
principle that Iraq must completely and totally disarm, and that is the
issue that the U.N. will be tested on when they vote.

Q I'm sorry, one more. What Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia
said today about Russia potentially using its veto if international
stability is threatened. Do you see that as a statement for domestic
consumption based on what President Putin told President Bush
yesterday?

MR. FLEISCHER: Here's the statement that was made: "Russia has
the right to a veto on the U.N. Security Council and will use it if it
is necessary in the interest of international stability." Frankly,
it's a statement that every one of the five nations of the Security
Council can make. I mean, there -- it states the obvious. Each nation
has a veto. It's not an indication that there will be a veto. And so
the United States will continue to talk productively with our allies
and the President remains confident of the ultimate outcome.

Q While you and the President have been consistent on the point
that this is about total disarmament, there is some inconsistency with
regard to the Al Samoud missiles. You said from this podium a couple
of weeks ago that whether or not he destroys the missiles would be a
"new test for Saddam Hussein." Now, if you look at that objectively,
if he's promising, and if he actually carries through on destroying
these missiles, then he would have passed that test. And now you and
the President have gone out of your way to diminish and dismiss the
importance of that step, when a couple of weeks ago, you were saying,
no, this is an important test.

MR. FLEISCHER: And it is a test. It is one question on the test.
The test has questions about his anthrax. He hasn't answered those
questions. The test has questions about his botulin, not only his
missiles. So there are all of those elements, which you know have been
well discussed, not just the missiles. The missiles are an important
part of it. We'll see what he ultimately does -- because, of course,
just as the President predicted, it is a game that Iraq is playing.
They, on the one hand, say they will destroy. We expect them to
destroy them. On the other hand, they're still producing them.

Q Right, but don't you see that there's no way to win here? I
mean, you guys --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there is. There is.

Q But on this issue, Ari, on this issue, there is no acceptable
answer to this administration. If you disarm, if you destroy the
missiles, that's still not good enough. If you don't do it, that's not
good enough, either.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's because the U.N. set out the standard:
full, immediate, complete disarmament. That is the standard, that is
the answer, that is what has not happened.

Q On the Homeland Security Department announcement today, the
President criticized Congress for not passing all of his spending. Why
did the President fail to convince the Republican-led Congress to pass
his money?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think what happened is, a process that broke last
fall was too far broken to be repaired. And that is, Congress
typically passes 13 individual appropriation bills, which allows for a
full consideration of each of the elements inside each of the 13
bills.

In this case, the fiscal year was almost half over, and the
President had to make the difficult decision that instead of getting
the homeland security money the way he would have preferred it, to have
helped do more for first responders, that it was best to accept the
progress that Congress did make to sign the bill. And I think
everybody in Congress recognizes that the process that began late in
2002 failed to get the job done -- and what's important now, in the
President's judgment, is to do it right this year, rather than do it
the way it was done last year.

Q So it was the Republican-led Congress that gave the bill to
President Bush, and President Bush signed it, and now he's criticizing
them?

MR. FLEISCHER: And as the President said in his statement,
immediately after, in the paragraph you just cited, he said, this is
something that Republican leaders on the Hill share the concern about.
I don't think you'll find anybody on the Hill who thought the process
was a good process that ended up with a thoughtful consideration of all
the elements inside a 4,000 page bill.

Q You might be able to find some leaders on the Hill, though,
who wish he wasn't criticizing his own party leaders for a bill that he
signed.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the point --

Q Just to follow-up on that, how much of the $3.5 billion that
was in his plan actually came from existing spending for local law
enforcement? In other words, are you just shifting the shares --

MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, that's a question you may want to ask to the
people at OMB. I don't have all the budget tables in front of me.

Q Critics say there was some money in his budget plan that was
already earmarked for local law enforcement, he just shifted it over.
Do you deny that? Is that wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, the administration does not earmark.
Earmarks are a prerogative of Congress. The administration takes a
look at the flexible --

Q I'm sorry, he cut money. You guys cut money from other law
enforcement funding and put it into this $3.5 billion.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, that's the question you just asked, that I
said you need to talk to officials at OMB about any of the line item
budget specifics.

Q Six opposition leaders from six Iraqi opposition groups have
come together to name what they call an interim leadership group, which
would apparently take power if and when Saddam is removed. Does the
United States favor this? Would we recognize this group as the
leadership after a war?

MR. FLEISCHER: One, it is not the place of the United States to
choose Iraq's next leader. Iraq's next leader would be chosen by the
people of Iraq. And the United States has stated, and this will be our
policy in the event force is used, that the future of Iraq must be
decided by people inside Iraq and outside Iraq. And the United States
has made no specific selections, and it will not be our place to do
so.

Q But does the United States approve or disapprove of this
action? These people have set up their own interim leadership, and
they want to take over.

MR. FLEISCHER: We understand that there are going to be a series
of conversations and consultations that take place. And the message
that we have given, unequivocally, is that we support the choosing of
the next leader of Iraq by the people of Iraq, from both inside and
outside Iraq.

Q So you don't care one way or the other about this interim
leadership group that's been formed?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I indicated, we support the choosing of the
next leader of Iraq from both inside and outside Iraq, not just in one
place.

Q But is this a positive development, then?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've characterized what we support.

Q Ari, consumer confidence has gone down for the third month in
a row. Are you counting on the economy to rebound after war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, today is an interesting day, economically.
Of course, you do have some of the consumer confidence reports that
came out during the week. You have the sharp rise in durable goods
this week, and you also have the unexpectedly large -- the doubling of
projected growth for the fourth quarter of last year.

When you take a look at that last bit of data, what it shows is
that the economy in 2003 now grew at a rate of just under 3 percentage
points. So the economy was in recession in 2001, it grew to just under
3 percentage points in 2002, and the forecast from the private sector
economists is that the economy will grow at even a greater rate than
that in 2003, taking into account the year in its entirety.

The President's concern remains that because of other factors in
the economy, and as a result of the uncertainty that war has created,
that there is a need for a stimulus package. And the President has
called on Congress to pass it.

Q Ari, going back to David's question on Iraq. If he's looking
at the glass half full, the White House is looking at the glass
half-empty -- will there ever be a meeting of the minds or some middle
ground to come up with some kind of compromise to the potential war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President remains hopeful that war can be
averted. The President remains hopeful that Saddam Hussein and his top
leaders will go into exile or that he will completely and totally
disarm. But, clearly, Saddam Hussein is acting in a way that does not
lend confidence to that possible outcome. And that is the source of
the concern, that Saddam Hussein is not following what the United
Nations called on him to do.

Q But Mr. Blix is seeing a sign of hope that, yes, this is a
turning point, he is planning to destroy tomorrow. Yet, the White
House is once again, as you said, lies, deception, things of that
nature. You don't see it as a positive step -- even though, yes, he
did deny that he had them -- but you don't see this as a positive step
forward to the destruction, to total disarmament that you're calling
for?

MR. FLEISCHER: Total disarmament is total disarmament is total
disarmament. It's not a piece of disarmament. As I said the other
day, that if somebody takes one bullet out of the chamber of a gun
while they have six other bullets in the gun, they haven't disarmed.
They've merely put one bullet aside, while they still have five they
can kill you. And that's the analogy here that is at play.

Q A follow-up real quick on that. Do you think that this
back-and-forth with the United Nations and the President has helped his
poll numbers go down some?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think the President looks at it that way
and I think there's been remarkable stability to his polling numbers,
frankly. He remains very, very popular.

But let me talk a little bit about the United Nations, though, and
the process that we are in the middle of, in advance of an important
event, which is Mr. Blix's report, which leads up, then, to a vote.
And I want to spend a minute on this, because a lot of these questions
are trying to deal with the daily tax of statements around the world
from one leader or another, trying to guess what the ultimate outcome
will be.

Let me read something: "The United States faces an uphill struggle
with the United Nations this week to obtain a Security Council
resolution." Here's another one: "Setback for Bush Gulf strategy, more
U.N. votes needed. After a week of intense diplomacy, the Bush
administration has been forced to accept that it still does not have
enough votes to secure overwhelming approval of a Security Council
resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq." And then this,
from the leader of Germany: "Anyone who believes that this can be
solved militarily must think of the end, not the beginning of the
enterprise. What will the consequences be? How many victims will
there be? And won't a political solution still have to be found
afterwards anyway?"

That was 1990. These statements were made in 1990, the same
statements you're hearing today, in the events that lead up to the
ultimate vote. And, of course, in 1990, the United Nations voted.

Two more: "The United States formally introduced a tough
resolution on Iraqi disarmament to the 15-member United Nations
Security Council on Wednesday, though the measure still face a strong
opposition from veto-holding Russia, France, and China." Another one:
"That there was little sign of give in the French position, President
Jacques Chirac, in a statement some interpreted as a veto threat, said
France would continue to push for a resolution, in line with the
interest of the region as we see them. 'If it does not succeed,'
Chirac said, 'France, as a member of the Security Council and a
permanent member, will assume its responsibilities.'" This is from the
fall of 2002, and of course, the United Nations went on to approve the
resolution.

My point is, you're covering the process as if it was a baseball
game. You're looking at every step that has taken -- every hit, every
pitch, every strike -- ignoring the fact that history has shown that
during this consultative process, you'll be able to write any type of
story you want about any of these types of statements. But the focus
is on the outcome for President Bush.

And I understand there are all these interim steps that lead up to
it, and you're going to hear various statements and cover those various
statements. But my point is, you've seen this in 1990, and you knew
what the outcome was. You saw it in 2002 and you knew the outcome
was. In 2003, the President has decided to pursue this through a very
consultative process. And he remains confident in what the ultimate
outcome will be. And you have heard statements like this before from
others on the Council. And I expect you will hear statements from both
sides that will continue until the very day of the vote.

Q So this situation with Blix right now doesn't matter? You
gave a statement and I want to get a follow-up to it.

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, it matters. And that's why we're
working through the United Nations.

Q The President's interview with USA Today, his comment that
Iraq will be disarmed, how is that not an indication that he has
decided on military action?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, throughout that entire interview -- as you
can read from the inside passages of it, in addition to the just the
front page headline -- is the President repeatedly saying that he hopes
this can be done through peace. There's talk about this conditional,
if we go to war. And then the headline, of course, jumped up and said,
we will disarm him now. And if you want to know what the definition of
"now" is, you can look at the very next sentence that the President
said in the interview with USA Today, which was, "after 12 long years,
he will be disarmed." So when the President talks about "now," he's
talking about in the current context after 12 years, he will now be
disarmed.

Q But does he mean now? Does he mean now?

MR. FLEISCHER: He means weeks, not months.

Q Ari, if I could follow up on April and David's question. You
said before it was the destruction of the Al Samoud missiles would be
just a piece of disarmament --

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q -- and you're looking at pieces. If you don't give any
meaning to the pieces, I mean, how -- the pieces, if you add them up,
would equal total disarmament. So if there's no value to the pieces,
what is it that Saddam Hussein could possibly do --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because Saddam Hussein has shown that a history of
his actions throughout the '90s or his pieces are nothing but
diversions and deceptions. His pieces do not lead up to a totality,
which means that Iraq is completely and totally disarmed.

Q But if you look at now -- not at history, but at now, if he
says, okay, I'm going to disarm, I'm going to comply to this or that --
why not give any value or any weight to those pieces? Because if you
look at those pieces, together they would fit a puzzle of the total,
you might have a chance of seeing total disarmament. I mean, why would
you negate any meaning at all to the pieces?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because the United Nations Security Council called
for, in November, full, complete and immediate disarmament. It did not
say, stretch it out, delay it and only after you're under pressure
should you say you're going to destroy a missile that you once claimed
you never had and you still say doesn't even violate the United
Nations. And that's the problem with the Saddam Hussein. Every time
he's under pressure he tries to relieve the pressure by disarming just
a touch, just a little; playing the game, playing the deception.

And the's why, as I said to you, when you sum up what Iraq is, and
you sum up the actions they take, the Iraqi actions are propaganda,
wrapped in a lie, inside a falsehood.

Q And a follow on Israel. Has the President spoken with Prime
Minister Sharon recently? And is the administration still the position
that Israel would not or should not retaliate if Iraq attacks?

MR. FLEISCHER: Our position on if Iraq were to attack -- and it's
not just Israel, Iraq has attacked other neighbors, as well -- is that
if Iraq attacks one of its neighbors we will, of course, consult
closely with all the affected parties. We understand as well that we
are dealing with sovereign countries whose leaders have a
responsibility to defend their country and their citizens.

Q Ari, the New York Times quotes you as telling them that Dan
Rather conducted a, "Journalistically solid interview with Saddam
Hussein, even though what he televised was," you said, "propaganda and
lies from a dictator." And it was arranged with the help of Ramsey
Clark, with CBS unable to use its own cameras, and having to wait for
half a day while the Iraqis edited it.

And my question is, since the Times also quotes an anonymous White
House official asking how CBS might deal with a demand from the White
House that they not use their own cameras, and since a Baltimore poll
of 729 people on WCBM rated this --

MR. FLEISCHER: Is there a question here?

Q -- appropriate 3 percent and propaganda 96 percent --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I get your question, Lester.

Q -- do you still really think that this was journalistically
solid, Ari, really?

MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I think there is a very important issue
here that is going to be a very difficult matter for journalists
covering a potential war in Iraq to deal with. And this interview is a
good early indication of something that journalists are going to face.

Now I'll give you something that Iraq has talked about. And this
is the issue of blowing up dams, for example. In the event there is a
war, and journalists are in Iraq, and a dam is blown up, I think
there's no question you will be offered Iraqi propagandas to go live on
the air, in the area of the dam, and will they be able to show you a
flood. They will have the set up -- made it set up so you can go live
on the air, from the ability of the Iraqis to put you there.

And American media are going to have to ask themselves, do we put
these paid liars and propagandists on the air to show this? Or do you
withhold going live, at a time when if there is war, the networks are
likely to cover it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is
going to be a real demand for putting things on the air? These are
difficult issues for journalists to decide.

The Dan Rather interview with Saddam Hussein is in a slightly
different category. I think there is no question that an interview
with Saddam Hussein is solid journalism. But the journalists still
have to ask themselves these questions about the responsibility to
accuracy, knowing that the Iraqis are nothing but propagandists and
deceivers.

Q Ari, there is a new 30-second radio spot which was reported
in its entirety by the Washington Times, which notes -- to summarize it
-- in 1998, Pat Leahy said he opposed any filibuster against any judge,
even somebody he opposed, and he said the Senate has a duty to give
every judicial nominee a vote, and allowing a minority of senators to
block a vote on a judicial nominee shamed all senators.

Now that was 1998. Today, Pat Leahy is blocking a Senate vote on
Miguel Estrada. Shame on you Pat Leahy, shame. The question, does the
President -- the President doesn't disagree with this shame on Leahy
spot by American Renewal, does he, Ari? He agrees with it, doesn't
he?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question that you have
accurately quoted Patrick Leahy. Patrick Leahy, in 1998, did say,
emphatically, that it was wrong to engage in filibuster of judges and
that it should not be done and that he would not do it. And, frankly,
I do --

Q And that's shameful, isn't it, Ari? Isn't that shameful?

MR. FLEISCHER: I do think it's also accurate to say he has gotten
away with changing his position scott-free.

Q Ari, two questions on Iraq. In response to an earlier
question, you said the President still hopes to avoid war, and that
Saddam Hussein could avoid it by completely and totally disarming, and
by going into exile. I'm wondering, are you -- is that now the
standard? Previously, you've obviously said disarmament. But is it
now the combination of disarmament and exile?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President made it perfectly plain
yesterday in the Oval Office and he has said this repeatedly, it's
disarmament and regime change.

Q So even though the United Nations would sign on to the first
part of that, and not to the second, when the President thinks about
launching military action, he's going to think about the combination?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made that plain.

Q The second question is, it was notable in Wednesday's speech
and in the comments yesterday, the President hasn't publicly gotten
into, in the past week or so, the debate over what it is that Saddam
needs to do to disarm, the specifics of it, the questions about Mr.
Blix. He had almost moved beyond that in his speech, when he talked
about the vision of a post-Saddam Iraq. At this point, has the
President basically decided to suspend making public arguments about
what it is Saddam needs to do, and basically in his own mind, moved the
whole country and the world toward a vision of Iraq without him?

MR. FLEISCHER: If I'm not mistaken, David, it was the day before
the speech, or two days before the speech when the President in the
Roosevelt Room -- no, I'm sorry -- in the Cabinet Room, said, complete
disarmament. And the President expressed his thoughts then that here's
what he needs to do, total disarmament. So the President has spoken
about it just this very week.

Q Ari, a second ago, you said that forecasts for growth in 2003
are going to be over 3 percent. Is the President at all worried that
since nothing is really going to be done until the Iraq situation is
resolved, that the tax package is going to come too little, too late?
And, secondly, why is it now a stimulus and not a jobs and growth
package?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've always called it all three. I've repeatedly
called it stimulus, jobs and growth. So that's a matter of lexicon and
all three are accurate.

But the timing of the tax package is unrelated to anything that
would happen with Iraq. Congress has its own schedule for the
consideration of tax packages and, historically, that means actions
taken in the Congress typically -- in 2001 it was done very early,
which meant Memorial Day; and typically it's done closer to the summer
months, June, July or August. The President believes the earlier the
better.

Q -- said, it's going to be 3 percent growth, so isn't that
going to be too late?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, of course, because the more growth there is --
especially as it ramps-up toward the end of the year -- the more jobs
there will be for the American people.

Q Ari, some experts in the Senate are now saying the Miguel
Estrada nomination is dead, that there is no way there will be
sufficient votes for cloture. How long does the President intend to
leave the nomination on the floor? And would he consider a recess
appointment?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said that he will do this for as
long as it takes. The President believes very deeply in the importance
of the Senate taking action to confirm Miguel Estrada, and not to
engage in these obstructionist tactics that Chairman Leahy said he
would never engage in, in the first place, which he is now the leader
of the engagement.

And just yesterday, another letter was sent from Judge Gonzales to
Democrat leaders on the Hill, suggesting ways to break the impasse if
only they would avail themselves of it.

Q Ari, you just talked about the economy and the no timing of
the tax cut being related to the war in Iraq. Yet, this coming at the
same time with the tensions with Iraq and the situation in Venezuela is
pushing oil to $40 a barrel, and you've got a frigid winter in the
northeast driving up natural gas prices. Is the cost of energy going
-- is the President concerned that the cost of energy for Americans is
actually going to punch a hole, and kind of negate the effect any
benefit you might get from the tax package? And is anybody in the
administration giving new thought, perhaps, to taking steps to
alleviate this in the near term?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the cost of energy remains a very important,
and the availability of energy remain very important issues for both
the President and the Congress. And there have been a confluence of
factors involving both the cold weather and a shortage of supply that
have led to an increase in the prices, which concerns the President
greatly. There is a cyclical nature to some of this, and we have seen
the prices go up and down before.

To avoid a repeatable, predictable pattern of the cyclical nature,
which hurts consumers, the President believes that is why Congress must
pass a comprehensive plan to deal with energy, to increase conservation
and to create more supply. These become predictable debates in
Washington, as prices go up in the winter, and then they come down, and
they go back up in the summer. The President thinks that people came
to Washington to think long-term, and to act long-term, and to get
ahead of the cycle. And that's why it's so important for Congress to
pass the comprehensive legislation that the President has discussed to
increase conservation and promote more production.

Q If I could just follow. In the last 30 years, when oil hits
$40 a barrel, it typically triggers a recession. Does the President
believe that the tax package that he has before the Congress now will
be enough to curtail a possible recession if oil stays at $40 a
barrel?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, one, today is the perfect day to
study some of these benchmarks about predictions and patterns, given
the fact that the best estimators in the government did not have the
estimate correct about the past. The fourth quarter GDP report we have
today, it does indicate that you have to be guarded about estimates
into the future. And that's why the President's focus is on the
principal policies -- in this case, the American people need to
conserve more, they deserve to have more supply. And we need to have
an economic growth plan in place that creates jobs. All of the above.

Q The Pentagon yesterday delivered a rather strong warning to
news organizations, that they should get their journalists out of
Baghdad because it would be -- before a war starts, because it would be
an unsafe place, a very unsafe place once a conflict begins. Some of
the news organizations that received that warning said they suspected
that at least

one of the purposes of delivering it was that the administration
doesn't want journalists in Baghdad to witness what goes on in the case
of a war. Is there anything to that suspicion?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, Ken. I think that if there is war, there is
one thing I have to say to the journalists who are going to be in
harm's way, doing their duty for our country and our people -- and that
is I can only urge you all, individually, as people I know and to your
colleagues, to listen to the military. This is not a light matter.
And if the military says something, I strongly urge all journalists to
heed it. It is in your own interests, and your family's interests.
And I mean that.

Q Would the administration prefer that, though, that
journalists not be there to witness what is going on when war starts?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, clearly, it is the administration that has
decided to imbed journalists inside the troops for the exact purpose of
seeing what goes on, so you can see if the Iraqis claim that America
destroyed a dam -- that you'll be there, yourselves, to see whether or
not that is a true statement or not a true statement.

Q Ari, can you react to the action taken yesterday by the
AFL-CIO's executive council? This is an entity that's been anything
but anti-war throughout its history, but yesterday in Florida they
passed a resolution that essentially says the President hasn't made a
coherent case yet and that there should be no war without the U.N.
backing.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it shows -- and I'm going to speak very
carefully, because I'm speaking about "some" not "all" -- because,
clearly, there are members in the AFL-CIO who do not see it that way.
But I think it's a further sign that there are some who are becoming
attachments to the Democratic National Committee and the liberal wing
of the party, and their philosophy is represented by increasing
liberalism that is out of step with their membership.

Q You mentioned the fact that the President talked to the Dutch
Prime Minister this morning. There's already a close cooperation
between the Netherlands and the U.S., with Patriot missiles in Turkey,
for example, U.S. transports going through the Netherlands. Have any
additional requests been made by the President? And, secondly, you've
seen quite a European leaders who are firmly on the U.S. side being
invited to the White House to meet the President. Did the President
invite Dutch Prime Minister to meet him here? And if not, can the
Dutch Prime Minister expect such an invitation any time soon?

MR. FLEISCHER: On your second part of your question, as always, if
we have invitations to report, they get reported in consultation and
coordination with a foreign country. And that's the timing that we
always follow to make an announcement.

On the first point, I think you have to be referred to the
Netherlands. It is their place to describe any activities that they
are participating in.

Q Did the President make any requests?

MR. FLEISCHER: I gave you the read-out of the phone call.

Q Is the President reconfiguring his prescription drug plan in
face of opposition from Hill Republicans?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President's plan has always been to do two
things. One is to get prescription drugs to senior citizens; and the
second is to modernize the program. We have always said that we want
to work closely with members of Congress on the details of it. And
that's exactly what you're seeing unfold.

Q And may I have a follow-up? My recollection is that you have
said up there that the President's plan does not hinge on people going
into an HMO.

MR. FLEISCHER: Exactly.

Q But the people up on the Hill are saying that's exactly what
it is that is being proposed. What is the --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, given the fact that we did not make any type
of formal proposal to the Hill, I think people are talking off of
information that is incorrect, if anybody would be -- to say something
like that. The President believes that the best way to save Medicare
is to get prescription drugs to seniors, to modernize the programs, and
to give people more choices and better benefits.

Q Ari, will the administration call for a vote on a second
resolution only if it appears it has the support for it to pass, or --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the United Nations is heading for a vote.

Q So you're saying, regardless whether or not it appears the
administration has the support --

MR. FLEISCHER: And I'd urge you to keep in mind what I explained
about 1990, when you heard so many similar statements before and 2002
--

Q But I'm just saying, bottom line, the administration will
call for a vote or press for a vote regarding how the other countries
appear to be lining up?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't see anything that indicates anything
otherwise.

Q There have been reports out of Maine that the children of
deployed service personnel are being harassed as a result of their
elementary school teacher's expression of anti-war views in the
classroom. Could you comment on that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with any specific report, but I
can assure you that the President, in all instances, believes that it's
important for all to honor and respect the first amendment.

Q Ari, is the White House concerned about the highly negative
reaction from European nations about the President's use of religious
terms and themes as he makes his argument or explanation for war?

MR. FLEISCHER: One, I'm not aware of them. And, two, the
President speaks as he speaks because he believes as he believes.

Q Ari, your answer to Don's question about the AFL-CIO implied
that you view it as almost a matter of Democratic Party policy to
oppose a war in Iraq. Your congressional resolution last fall passed
with considerable Democratic support, and two rather prominent
Democratic presidential candidates have been with the President on
this. Why do you view this as a matter of --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that when you look at the leadership
of some of the organizations, and certainly, when you look at some of
the rhetoric of the presidential candidates, you see people who really
do view this as a matter very differently than the President does. I
think that's true for much of the liberal base of the Democratic
party. And I say that with respect, but I say that accurately.

Q Can we revisit your approach to how the press covers a war,
if it happens? Are saying that U.S. will not censor anything that, you
know, where the correspondents are embedded, so-called?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, anything dealing with the embedment issues
and journalists, you need to talk to the Pentagon about. They're in
charge of it.